James B. Byrne wrote: > REPLY-TO: <183c528b0908121238k33c407ah18e4762c48652de4 at mail.gmail.com> > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:38:00 -0400 > Brian Mathis <brian.mathis at gmail.com> > > > >> It also helps to understand how people read instructions. When >> they look at a page, they see {big blob of useless introduction >> text}, then they see "Step 1, do this". They almost always go >> right to Step 1. >> >> I'd bet $100 that everyone reading this thread has done that more >> than once, recently. It's not good enough to put the warnings so >> far separated from the actual commands. You might have some >> feelings about how things *should* be done, but you don't get to >> make that decision for people, you just need to know it and work >> within it. >> > > "Code Complete" has an entire section on why variables should only > be declared immediately before they are used. This is essentially > the same issue in a different guise. > > >> As far as the replies here go, the first one insinuates that the >> person can't follow instructions, the second one calls the person >> dumb, and others say that the person is incompetent, and compares >> their intelligence to that of a bottle. That IS rude and arrogant >> in my book, and your final sentence only continues with the >> passive-aggressive swiping that goes on too often in IT realms. >> >> > > Well, I find that the real problem is more often the medium, not the > messenger. The immediacy of E-Mail simply does not promote the > reflective approach required to create effective written > communication. However, what can be compensated for by body > language when stated in person may project a brusque and > contemptuous tone in writing so that failing to take the necessary > time extracts its cost in needless upset and conflict. > > There are a few other things that people should really consider > before they dash off their offhand remarks. Firstly, it is unwise > to shout at ones watchman, for the next time they see something > suspicious then they may remember the first occasion and hold their > tongue. If somebody senses something is wrong then they should be > civilly treated when they bring it to our attention. Even if their > concern is the result of their misapprehension this is a sign that > perhaps the information provided needs revisiting and revision. I > doubt that anyone could reasonably hold up the documentation of most > software as exemplars of clarity and comprehensiveness. > > Secondly, not all of us, I speculate that not even most of us, work > in large organisations. In fact, I would venture to guess that most > people using CentOS are found in small shops or even sole > practitioner sites. So, railing about how things should be run > given infinite resources and time simply of flies in the face of the > realities surrounding OSS utilisation and is completely useless. > > Thirdly, the Net has a surfeit of nannies. If you are not yourself > going to deal with the issue raised then keep silent. If the 'signal > to noise' ratio is bothering you then at least withhold your own > contribution to the noise. > > I found a golden rule that has helped a lot over the last 20 years has been "never send more than two emails on any topic" after two, pick up the phone or see them in person or in the case of a list such as this - drop it and move on. As you correctly point out, one can easily rant and rave about an issue when its hot and perceived to be urgent and/or important and very few have the literary skills to accurately convey what we intend, otherwise we'd be publishing best sellers for mega-bucks not writing on mailing lists. my $0.02 worth. Rob -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rkampen.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 121 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20090813/02b0652a/attachment-0005.vcf>